Misconceptions, mistakes and misunderstandings

lookie there! now i feel smart. thanks!

Well, I'd have been with you if you hadn't called this list "mistakes, misconceptions, and misunderstandings." which implies that long held beliefs are factually wrong.

While it is true that baseball is based on an old English game called rounders, by the time it became baseball, in the USofA, it bore little resemblence to rounders.

And the earth has only one moon, and one corkscrew asteroid orbiting it. I found about 37 references to that, show me a few that say 7.

And finally, I have six Bibles in my house, and the last verse of Revelations Chapter 13 in each and every one of them says, "...and his number is six hundred threescore and six." My study Bible is foot noted, "some manuscripts read 616" Again, hardly a fact, that renders 666 a mistake or misconception.

I hate to be an ass, but there is so much bullshit on the Internet passing as fact, and I get so tired of hearing it that I feel like we need to nip it in the bud when half truths or theories are passed as facts.

let me take great pleasure in correcting you on a few things. first and foremost, this isnt your average 'internet bullshit' as you so aptly put it.

furthermore...

for 2000 years the number of the beast has been 666. however, in 2005, a new translation of the earliest copy of the Book of Revelation, once thought lost, but found in Egypt (slightly over 1,700 years old) clearly shows it to be 616, not 666. I point you in the direction of the studies of Professor David Parker for more information on that.

yes, we have 1 official moon, funnily enough, its called The Moon. took them weeks to think that one up. the 6 other asteroids I mention do follow the Earth around the sun, despite being naked to the invisible eye. Its much argued if they allowed to be called moons, or quasi moons, either way they are predicted to one day settle down into a regular orbit of our planet. therefore becoming moons.

Baseball is NOT based on rounders. 'Base ball' as it was known (in England) appeared in a book in 1744, whilst rounders did not appear in print until 1828.

i hearby stand by the title of this list as correct. anyone feel the need to argue this can visit qi.com and talk to them, or, like me, you can buy the book which these facts came from, qi.com/book

Pam, since you asked so nicely, i shall copy out some more for a 'Part II' list in a week or so.
OlHippie, please dont pidgeon-hole me as you seem to have done with this list, i'm not calling you ignorant, im calling the human race ignorant! we know so little about so much. even if some of the things I may have written about can be argued until the cows come home, who is to say who is right and wrong? there are just some subjects that have been researched by smarter people than you or I.

Well done, krist. You actually seem to know whereof you speak; I'll check your references and get back to you. I read a piece years ago about the corkscrew asteroid, but I can't find any reference to the other five. I'll keep looking.

Well, I'm sorry krist, but I'm going to have to stand by my original statement. Admittedly, your list is really high quality internet bullshit, but it is bullshit all the same. As I said, my principle problem with your list was the title. You present theories and disputed bits of information as "facts." You did not say, "the things you thought were true, may not be," you presented it as a fact.

You did not say, "baseball is similar to a game played in England," or "the word baseball was coined in England." You said, "Baseball was invented in England." A simple declarative statement. The first mention of the term base-ball was indeed in a 1744 children's book titled "A Little Pretty Pocket-Book" by John Newbery. In a poem, it said, "The Ball once struck off/Away flies the Boy/To the next destin'd Post/And then Home with Joy." There was no further description of the game, and the drawing accompanying the poem showed posts instead of bases; similar to cricket. So, I'm afraid I'll have to go with precision here, as there are cave drawings of men trying to hit a thrown rock with a stick. I don't know if they were in England or not.

Continued.

The earth has only one moon. There are perhaps thousands or millions of bits of rock that share Earth's orbit around the Sun; these are called "Coorbital Asteroids." Every so often, the Earth catches up with one of these asteroids, or vise versa, and the asteroid will "corkscrew" around the Earth for a while. Currently, the only asteroid corkscrewing around us is asteroid 2003 YN107, which has been here since 1999. It too will eventually be left behind, or leave us behind. To qualify as a moon, a naturally occurring object must orbit a planet in a regular and predictable fashion, NOT share our orbit around the sun. By the way, the moon was named long before any other planet's "moons" were discovered. Pardon the baseball simile, but: a swing and a miss; strike two.

You are on a little firmer ground with you "number of the beast" argument, but not much firmer. The argument regarding the "true" number of the beast actually goes back at least to Bishop Irenaeus in the late second century. The "new" copy of Revelations to which you refer, and which David Parker promotes is a scrap of papyrus identified as Oxyrhynchus Papyri 4499, published in 1999. It does, indeed show the text as chi, iota, stigma, which translates to 616. However, many biblical scholars agree with Irenaeus that this was simply an error in transcription. So, while there are shreds of fact in your argument, it falls way short of fact. Note: It is always dangerous to rely on a single text; it takes more than one horse to make a rodeo.

Finally, please don't dismiss me in such a condescending manner again. Feel free to include yourself among those less "smart" than the researchers, but don't include people you don't know. I believe that is strike three.

Geez! You guys have way too much time on your hands! I have trouble just keeping track of my check book balance, muchless putting any thought into the genus of baseball.

as previously posted, try directing your rants to qi.com.

Well, that was disappointing, I must say. I had hoped for more.

See krist69, it wasn't qi.com who said, "let me take great pleasure in correcting you on a few things," that was all you, Sparky. It also wasn't qi.com who wrote, "OlHippie, please dont pidgeon-hole me as you seem to have done with this list, i'm not calling you ignorant, im calling the human race ignorant!" Again, that was you, and as part of the human race, I didn't care for your supercilious tone.

Now normally, I'd continue to fricasee your limey ass for a couple more paragraphs, with comments on your spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, but I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler OlHippie, so I'll let it slide. Good day.

love. it.
I think OlHippie made some good points in that you shouldn't make blanket statements about something without expecting your audience to question you; and it doesn't appear that you double-checked any of your information against your source, "The Book of General Ignorance" http://qi.com/book/(Although, I do love Stephen Fry).

If you want people to take you seriously, you should include where you got the material and cite a reputable source. I like the general idea of where you were going and what you set out to do though. I also think it was pretty clear that OlHippie was just trying to tactfully point out to you a few problems with your claims without making it personal.

But look how much discussion it provoked! Ha!